A Pro-Life Advocate Is Caught In Hypocrisy: Good. And Good Journalism

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

One of the reasons the anti-abortion position has trouble making the inroads on public opinion and policy that it should on its merits is because of supposed pro-life advocates like GOP State Rep. Richard Holtorf. In a TV interview on a local TV station (he is running for Congress—just what we need, another dim bulb hypocrite in the Capitol) Holtorf was forced to justify his indefensible double standard on abortion. Naturally, he couldn’t do it.

In January, the 59-year-old defended footing the bill for his girlfriend’s abortion, which seemed to be inconsistent with a failed 2020 measure he supported that would have banned the procedure in the Colorado after 22 weeks. His girl friend was more than 22 weeks pregnant. “I respected her rights and actually gave her money to help her through her important, critical time,” Holtorf said, that time being 1986.  

9News anchor Kyle Clark asked him the obvious question: “If abortion was the best choice for your girlfriend, why try to deny that choice to other women?” Holtorf”s response can be fairly summarized as “huminahuminahumina,” Ralph Kramden’s immortal retort on “The Honeymooners” when trapped into having to explain one of his habitual blunders.

Continue reading →

Father’s Day Morning Nausea, 2024 Election Ethics Train Wreck Edition

/ Jack Marshall / 14 Comments

Waking up this Father’s Day [Thanks, Dad, for 1) being such a terrific, selfless father 2) for continuing to be an inspiration, a role model and a guide during my highs and lows (like now), and everything in-between 3) for loving my wonderful mom and showing it so brilliantly to everyone, especially her, without interruption for almost sixty years; 4) for somehow saving so much money on a modest salary to hand over to my sister, me, and the three grandchildren through sacrifice and smart investing, because without it I would be living in a cardboard box right now, and 5) for surviving the Battle of the Bulge] to the near certainty that my son (who informed me last week that he would like me to refer to him/her/they as my daughter, Samantha. OK! ), is almost certain to ignore this rather contrived holiday (which is fine with me), a mystery in my yard in which someone or something keeps pulling the 15-foot-long heavy plastic, 7″ diameter tubing, installed to send runoff from the gutters into the garden rather than into my home’s foundation, off the down spout and dragging it into my neighbor’s yard, and another fight with a customer service rep, who, I swear, spoke exactly like Andy Kaufmann’s character on “Taxi” but faster than an auctioneer—yes, this IS a long sentence!—I sat down with Spuds to talk myself out of seppuku, drink a cup of coffee, and check what nonsense the various news networks were spouting.

Big mistake.

Continue reading →

NOW Can We Agree That Black Lives Matter Is a Scam and a Blight on America (Which Should Have Been Obvious From the Beginning)?

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

(It was obvious to me!)

Records reveal that the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation (BLMGNF) has unethically and criminally used charitable contributions to enrich family members of the Black Lives Matter cabal, and of course, the leaders of the cabal themselves.

Gee. What a surprise.

Tax filings show that…

Continue reading →

A Pazuzu Excuse Classic From Columbia U!

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

Paz

The Pazuzu Excuse is an Ethics Alarms term for when someone, often a public figure or celebrity, is caught on video or on a recording saying outrageous, offensive, career-threatening things. With no reasonable excuse at hand, such miscreants often default to claiming that for some reason what came out of their own mouths was not really “them,” and didn’t represent their “true feelings” or beliefs.

You know, like when sweet 12-year-old Regan, possessed by the demon Pazuzu, shouts out to Father Karras, “Your mother sucks cocks in Hell!” in “The Exorcist.”

The Washington Free Beacon reported (this reflects badly on a woke university and its leadership, so you wouldn’t expect the Washington Post to break the story, would you?) that during a Columbia panel featuring the former dean of Columbia Law School, David Schizer, who co-chaired the university’s task force on anti-Semitism and others, Josef Sorett, the dean of Columbia College, and fellow administrators Susan Chang-Kim, the vice dean and chief administrative officer of Columbia College; Cristen Kromm, the dean of undergraduate student life; and Matthew Patashnick, the associate dean for student and family support, listened to the panel discussion while texting each other with snarky, dismissive comments.

Continue reading →

Now THIS Is Pandering…

/ Jack Marshall / 2 Comments

Ugh. These are not the only corporations playing this dishonest and cynical game, as you know. There are so many ethics alarms this junk sets off it’s difficult for me to keep the clanging straight–oooh, can I still say “straight”?

1. The robotic response of companies and organizations falling into lockstep during “Pride Month” (and Black History Month, and…yada yada) has the stench of forced speech about it, like everyone flying swastikas in 1930s Germany. Are the companies afraid not to demonstrate the mandated rainbow obeisance? What does BP have to do with sexual orientations and non-standard sexual practices? Why should a company like that have any input into the conversation at all? Shut up and drill.

2. These phony gestures also indicate obedient mass participation in cultural propaganda and indoctrination. It is an abuse of power and influence, and it doesn’t matter whether the organizations are endorsing kittens or cannibalism. I feel my arm being twisted. I resent it.

3. If these rainbow logos really represented the companies’ values, then they wouldn’t hide them in nations where intolerance reigns. In fact, those are the cultures where the advocacy is most needed and might do the most good.

The bottom line, as those companies’ VPs might say, is that their management and ownership have no genuine values, other than the desire to make money. That’s fine: capitalism works, and the profit motive makes it work, but these facile, empty gestures should be reminders to all that the pandering organizations cannot be trusted or believed whether they are lining up to bow to BLM, DEI, #MeToo, the stupid Wuhan lockdown, or whatever the latest woke fad of the moment happens to be.

Ethics Quote of the Month: Ironically, It’s Justice Alito!

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

“An event that highlights the need to amend a law does not itself change the law’s meaning.”

—-Justice Joseph Alito, concurring in the case of Garland v. Cargill and re-affirming the ethical, legal, democratic and conservative principle that laws shouldn’t be ignored or changed by courts just because they no longer work the way they were designed to.

I guess this will be just one more reason for the Angry Left to try to “get” Alito. Maybe he likes to eat candy bars that a lot of the Capitol rioters ate, or something. May be they’ll hire a lip-reader to try to catch him saying something like “it was a riot!” while smiling. Conflict of interest! Recuse!

Re-affirming why the 6-3 conservative SCOTUS majority is good for democracy, the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday ruled that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (aka the ATF) exceeded its statutory authority when it tried to ban bump stocks by classifying them as machineguns. Machineguns are defined in an old statute, the National Firearms Act of 1934. It banned “machine guns,” encompassing today’s automatic weapons. The law “defines a machinegun as any weapon capable of firing “automatically more than one shot…by a single function of the trigger,” as Justice Clarence Thomas explained in the majority opinion. Although the definition also covers parts of a gun that are “designed and intended…for use in converting a weapon” into a machinegun, it does not cover “bump stocks.”

Bump stocks assist “bump firing,” which involves pushing a rifle forward to activate the trigger by bumping it against a steady finger, then allowing recoil energy to push the gun backwards, resetting the trigger. If the shooter maintains forward pressure and keeps the trigger finger in place, a semi-automatic rifle will fire like an automatic weapon (anti-gun fanatics don’t know the difference, and don’t care). The ATF’s “interpretive rule” published in December of 2018 banned stock replacements that facilitated this operation.

Continue reading →

From the Ethics Alarms “Conservatives Do Fake News Too” File…

/ Jack Marshall / 23 Comments

I really hate this stuff, and I’m getting sick of having to post on it.

Today I saw misleading click-bait headlines on various conservative blogs and websites were like this one: Woke California: U-Turn Signs Are Homophobic. There were many social media posts on accounts like “End Wokeness” with the same implication: those crazy LGPTQ fanatics are out of control, and are now even offended by regular traffic signs.

That was certainly my reaction to just reading the headlines. When I investigated—-my sock drawer is furious with me for using up our quality time together—I learned that the traffic signs removed by the LGBTQ community and the town of Silver Lake, California were considered homophobic because….the signs were homophobic.

In the 90s, before gay dating apps like Grindr, gays in Silver Lake (and elsewhere) relied on printed guidebooks to find public areas and gay bars where they could meet other men like them. “No U-Turn” and “No Cruising” signs were put up in parts of Silver Lake where residents had complained about gay men gathering. The signs were a—subtle? Not so subtle?—rebuke and warning.

The gay community in Silver lake has been trying for years to get official action approved to remove what the LA Times calls “signs of its anti-gay past,” and finally succeeded. None of the conservative websites that mocked this episode as hysterical hyper sensitivity mentioned the “No Cruising” signs in their headlines, and it’s obvious why. Seeing “No U-Turn” as an anti-gay message takes a little thought. “No Cruising”? I’ve never seen such a sign in my life. That one’s more obvious…so they buried it .

Deceit is one of the primary tools of fake news journalism.

If conservative blogs, news outlets and website have valid issues and points to make, they should be able to make them honestly by straightforward reporting. It is very disappointing to see a usually fair and reliable conservative commentary site like Legal Insurrection stooping to these tactics.

“The Ethicist” Is Persuaded By Pro-Abortion Double-Talk: 10 Observations

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

I find the latest query posed to The Ethicist to have such an ethically obvious answer as to be unworthy of publication, unless the objective was to demonstrate how weak and intellectually dishonest ethical the position of pro-abortion advocates is.

Here it is:

I’ve always supported a woman’s right to choose, not least because legal access to abortion once saved me from an untenable situation. I also believe that if a woman chooses to abort, her wish should supersede any opposition to it by the father. The physical, practical and emotional effects on a woman obliged to carry a child to term (and to care for it afterward) are, in my view, far more significant than they are for the father.

But what about the reverse? What about a case in which the father (in this case, my son) is adamantly opposed to having a child, but the woman (his ex-girlfriend) wants to keep the pregnancy? While it’s not relevant to the moral question, the pregnancy is shockingly unexpected given a medical issue of the father’s. And the couple’s relationship has almost no chance of success, even without a pregnancy. Given that the woman has neither a willing partner nor a job and is already responsible for a child from a previous relationship, her decision to continue with the pregnancy is viewed by most in her circle as reckless and certain to risk her already precarious mental health. Here, her right to choose to carry the child will have a profound impact on three (soon to be four) people and is likely to be very difficult for all.

Is it right to force someone to be a parent, even if in name only? Many people, me included, would say no if that person is a woman. Recent events have shown how fraught this issue is. And yet a man who does not wish to be, has never wanted to be and was told that his chances of ever being a parent were nil can find himself in a situation where his opposition carries no weight. While it’s evident that he will have financial obligations, what might his moral responsibility be?

What a god-awful, ethically-obtuse letter to be send for publication, never mind circulated by an ethicist! Let’s see:

Continue reading →

Friday Open Forum, Strange Times Edition

/ Jack Marshall / 33 Comments

That’s “Emily Pellegrini” above again, the famed digital model created with the assistance of an AI program. For some reason Emily was not entered in the World AI Creator Awards, a beauty pageant for imaginary women. Go figure.

So…whose victory is more justifiable in a female beauty pageant today? A morbidly obese woman? A biological male? Or a woman who doesn’t exist at all?

Never mind. Find some beauty in ethics. If you can. I’ll settle for even virtual beauty.

Only 40% of Americans “Approve” of the U.S. Supreme Court. Whose Fault is That? The Four Ethics Offenders…

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

Politico and other outlets are flogging a new poll from Marquette Law School released Tuesday found that 40% of adults approve of the Supreme Court’s actions, while 60% disapprove. This really isn’t news; it’s fake news in “The Sun is hot!” category by now. Gallup, which has been tracking the trust levels in American institutions for decades, wrote last September that “the 41% of U.S. adults who currently approve of how the Supreme Court is handling its job is statistically similar to the 40% to 43% ratings over the past two years. The court’s approval rating first fell to the record-low 40% in September 2021.” A single percentage point, obviously, is well within the margin for error in any poll and is not significant, and not significant means “not newsworthy.”

So the #1 villain in the ongoing destruction of the Supreme Court’s level of trust and approval among the public is…no surprise—our unethical, despicable, democracy-undermining news media. Since Roe v. Wade was finally knocked down by the Dobbs decision but even before, our “advocacy journalists,” or “journalists,” have made it their mission to erode public support for SCOTUS as part of their goal of forcing the Court to the ideological left so it can advance progressive agenda items that the Democratic Party can’t accomplish the way democracies are supposed to—you know, by passing constitutional laws.

Continue reading →